Who would rather have a standalone device that interfaces with Itunes over simply hooking up their mobile phone? I would much prefer simply hooking up my mobile phone to my TV. What I wouldn't want is to have to only view video recorded in whatever new Windows Media Player codec or format they attach to the hardware (I cite the Zune only supporting wmv/m4v formats for this prediction).
Your "quit the auto-hating on Microsoft" point is valid. and as much as everyone here bitched about Vista, it is a very elegant OS (except for the disappointing lack of driver support). This 'research,' however, still screams of the likelihood that the ultimate Microsoft product will be very inefficient, if not lacking in almost every standard product design consideration.
If I may refer to my response yesterday to another reply (probably on the same level as this re:), I hadn't meant that the garbage is converted to energy, simply that it produces the majority of the energy input into the system when it is combusted and that it cannot be left out of the energy considerations.
If you use less energy to ignite and burn the coal than it emits then you're ahead of the game, regardless of E=mc^2 or any other pointless appeals to thermodynamics.
The quote specifically states that
Researchers tested the first tactical biorefinery prototype in November and found that it produced approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed.
The energy of the fuel must be considered when making comparisons as to the consumption of energy. In this case, the researcher are stating that the electricity produced as a result of burning the diesel and waste is greater than the energy the diesel and waste put into powering the generator that made the electricity. The statement is akin to saying that you turning a crank on a generator can produce more joules out than your arm puts in. Friction, if nothing else, makes the statement false.
So, if the author was attempting to refer to the fact that the energy source used to burn the fuel produced less energy than was gained at the end, then I do agree. However, I believe the argument here is over the word consumed, in which case the fuel cannot be neglected as negligible.
And I do apologize for the use of the mass-energy equation. I should have explained myself more thoroughly rather than dropping a clique.
No, garbage in this case is the same as coal. It's a fuel. The problem is that energy in has to equal no more than energy out (when considering the entire equation).
So, something like garbage+fuel+reactant=generator=electricity(out)+w aste(ash)
If the equation were 1:1.9 as you suggest, then the machine would net more energy out than in, which would break a fundamental law of physics (suggesting that E does not equal mc^2).
The difference is that the serial killers are not using Homeland Security's surveillance cameras to track down their prey, while they do use computers and cars and firearms.
The intrusion of "always on" cameras means that we are to expect to be watched all the time when out-of-doors (and even in-doors, sometimes). While this will help increase crime prevention by a small percentage, it is a submission of personal liberty by a great degree. The question is not whether the cameras are helping, but how much we are giving up in order for a police state to keep greater psychological control of its population.
Music is different because each piece of music is considered to be the unique intellectual property of the creator, unlike defense or public works which are social services and not really produced for the same reasons (other than "making the world a better place").
While some musicians "do it for the love of the music," many more do it for the money. They can, because the music they create is unique to them (or used to be before the advent of pitch correction software).
Lots of violence on this post.
I'm not promoting pacifism. I just wanted to spew a bit of levity.
Pure pacifism is never really manifestable; slaves are not pacifisits, they are broken and oppressed.
The addition of this license will have no effect on military units, because no civilian court will approach them to prosecute infringment on the license.
Buddy, get over yourself. It was a joke -- I'm sorry you expect responses to your comments to be immature and infantile.
Truthfully, most of the wars conducted are for political momentum and holdings. Most of the recent wars weren't started for natural resources, even if your high school teachers convinced you of it. Resources are much easier procured through private sector contracts. Most wars are started for political holdings. Political power is much more valuable money than resources.
Just as creating an error-free code is guarenteed to fail.
Pacifism isn't a war propogator, nor is it a war disolver. Killing people makes more people want to kill other people than giving a person a hug does. Some people will still get mad that you gave them cooties, but many fewer than if you kill their brother.
...
A little thought next time before you try and build hypothetical situations.
By locking yourself in a room you have not relinquished any essential liberties (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) since, one, you're not dead, two, you are still able to say what you want, practice whatever religion you want, walk back out through the locked door (available option, however ill-decided), and three, you still have the ability to pursue happiness, even if it includes using the firearm you keep in the room (thanks to the liberty to bear arms) as the other replier to this parent suggests doing. No loss of freedom.
The quote, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," is not sickeningly overused, but rather unobserved too many times. By that I mean the message is not considered, only the imediate implication. It does not stand for "no police! no guns! no survelance," but something closer to "the government is for the people, not the other way around."
But, since you've decided neither Lost Penguin or I know what Benjamin Franklin intended his audience to understand, please, enlighten us. Also, how is it (the quote) totally incorrect? I'm curious.
When the ability to build drones becomes cheap enough for local law enforcement to use, they won't have to patrol the streets. The law enforcement already uses face and silhouette tracking software to keep tabs on people in public via inter-linked streetlight and survelance cameras.
When the government finally has silent, non-stop drones (solar power gives huge battery life), we need not worry, because every person in the entire country will have a convienent eye watching over them, reminding them with a ticket every time they travel.1 miles per hour over the speed limit or jay-walk. Because, having someone watching everything we do is freedom, right?
Why would you have to take a person to court to stop them from blogging? The admin can ban them. Problem solved, with no prosecutor, defense attorney, justice, court stenographer, court building maintainance, secretary(s), etc. costs to pay. Not to mention the appelate court costs when the indicted party challenges the two year sentence they were given for telling someone that "they should be shot" for expressing an opinion in a reply...
And, what happens when the indicted can't afford an attorney? I (and all the taxpayers) get to pay for them to get a public defendant to aid him against the littigation you bring against him over a comment in a post. Right. Mhmm.
By introducing all-ecnompasing and vague laws like this one, not only does the President not follow his promise to end frivolus lawsuits to decrease the cost of justice in this country, he gives another venue for trial lawyers to exponge money from the country's citizens.
It's not just the President, though, it's the Legislature that passed the malicious act who should be blamed. This even going to the president means that the majority of 540-ish men had to say "aye" to the bill.
Part of free speech means that people can say things that insult/enrage people. Calling a Chineese person a Chink, whilst being very abusive, is perfectly legal. Shall we have a law against calling someone a soccer mom, or a blonde, or a handicapped person, because they feel harrased by the words?
I think not. Nor should it be any different on the web. If you feel offended, talk to the admin. Get it solved, but for everyone's sake, don't make us pay for you not having a spine.
Slashdot Mirror
Your "quit the auto-hating on Microsoft" point is valid. and as much as everyone here bitched about Vista, it is a very elegant OS (except for the disappointing lack of driver support). This 'research,' however, still screams of the likelihood that the ultimate Microsoft product will be very inefficient, if not lacking in almost every standard product design consideration.
If I may refer to my response yesterday to another reply (probably on the same level as this re:), I hadn't meant that the garbage is converted to energy, simply that it produces the majority of the energy input into the system when it is combusted and that it cannot be left out of the energy considerations.
The quote specifically states that
Researchers tested the first tactical biorefinery prototype in November and found that it produced approximately 90 percent more energy than it consumed.The energy of the fuel must be considered when making comparisons as to the consumption of energy. In this case, the researcher are stating that the electricity produced as a result of burning the diesel and waste is greater than the energy the diesel and waste put into powering the generator that made the electricity. The statement is akin to saying that you turning a crank on a generator can produce more joules out than your arm puts in. Friction, if nothing else, makes the statement false.
So, if the author was attempting to refer to the fact that the energy source used to burn the fuel produced less energy than was gained at the end, then I do agree. However, I believe the argument here is over the word consumed, in which case the fuel cannot be neglected as negligible.
And I do apologize for the use of the mass-energy equation. I should have explained myself more thoroughly rather than dropping a clique.
Sorry, I meant energy out has to equal no more than the energy in.
So, something like garbage+fuel+reactant=generator=electricity(out)+w aste(ash)
If the equation were 1:1.9 as you suggest, then the machine would net more energy out than in, which would break a fundamental law of physics (suggesting that E does not equal mc^2).
The intrusion of "always on" cameras means that we are to expect to be watched all the time when out-of-doors (and even in-doors, sometimes). While this will help increase crime prevention by a small percentage, it is a submission of personal liberty by a great degree. The question is not whether the cameras are helping, but how much we are giving up in order for a police state to keep greater psychological control of its population.
Music is different because each piece of music is considered to be the unique intellectual property of the creator, unlike defense or public works which are social services and not really produced for the same reasons (other than "making the world a better place").
While some musicians "do it for the love of the music," many more do it for the money. They can, because the music they create is unique to them (or used to be before the advent of pitch correction software).
Lots of violence on this post. I'm not promoting pacifism. I just wanted to spew a bit of levity. Pure pacifism is never really manifestable; slaves are not pacifisits, they are broken and oppressed. The addition of this license will have no effect on military units, because no civilian court will approach them to prosecute infringment on the license.
Buddy, get over yourself. It was a joke -- I'm sorry you expect responses to your comments to be immature and infantile. Truthfully, most of the wars conducted are for political momentum and holdings. Most of the recent wars weren't started for natural resources, even if your high school teachers convinced you of it. Resources are much easier procured through private sector contracts. Most wars are started for political holdings. Political power is much more valuable money than resources.
Just as creating an error-free code is guarenteed to fail.
Pacifism isn't a war propogator, nor is it a war disolver. Killing people makes more people want to kill other people than giving a person a hug does. Some people will still get mad that you gave them cooties, but many fewer than if you kill their brother.
By locking yourself in a room you have not relinquished any essential liberties (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) since, one, you're not dead, two, you are still able to say what you want, practice whatever religion you want, walk back out through the locked door (available option, however ill-decided), and three, you still have the ability to pursue happiness, even if it includes using the firearm you keep in the room (thanks to the liberty to bear arms) as the other replier to this parent suggests doing. No loss of freedom.
The quote, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," is not sickeningly overused, but rather unobserved too many times. By that I mean the message is not considered, only the imediate implication. It does not stand for "no police! no guns! no survelance," but something closer to "the government is for the people, not the other way around."
But, since you've decided neither Lost Penguin or I know what Benjamin Franklin intended his audience to understand, please, enlighten us. Also, how is it (the quote) totally incorrect? I'm curious.
When the ability to build drones becomes cheap enough for local law enforcement to use, they won't have to patrol the streets. The law enforcement already uses face and silhouette tracking software to keep tabs on people in public via inter-linked streetlight and survelance cameras.
.1 miles per hour over the speed limit or jay-walk. Because, having someone watching everything we do is freedom, right?
When the government finally has silent, non-stop drones (solar power gives huge battery life), we need not worry, because every person in the entire country will have a convienent eye watching over them, reminding them with a ticket every time they travel
Maybe the foil-heads were on to something.
And, what happens when the indicted can't afford an attorney? I (and all the taxpayers) get to pay for them to get a public defendant to aid him against the littigation you bring against him over a comment in a post. Right. Mhmm.
By introducing all-ecnompasing and vague laws like this one, not only does the President not follow his promise to end frivolus lawsuits to decrease the cost of justice in this country, he gives another venue for trial lawyers to exponge money from the country's citizens.
It's not just the President, though, it's the Legislature that passed the malicious act who should be blamed. This even going to the president means that the majority of 540-ish men had to say "aye" to the bill.
Part of free speech means that people can say things that insult/enrage people. Calling a Chineese person a Chink, whilst being very abusive, is perfectly legal. Shall we have a law against calling someone a soccer mom, or a blonde, or a handicapped person, because they feel harrased by the words?
I think not. Nor should it be any different on the web. If you feel offended, talk to the admin. Get it solved, but for everyone's sake, don't make us pay for you not having a spine.
(I suppose I'll be sued now for harassment)